ISSF the Salt Spray Test and Its Use in Ranking Stainless Steels

8/20/2019 ISSF the Salt Spray Test and Its Use in Ranking Stainless Steels

1/20

1

The salt spray test and its use inranking stainless steels

The test and its limits

May 2008

A technical guide to the salt spray test and its interpretation with stainlesssteel


2/20

2

Contents

1. What is the aim of this brief?

What is the aim of this brief?……………………………………..What is the salt spray test?………………………………………Why it is so popular? What are its advantages?.......................What is written in the Standard (ASTM and EN ISO)?..............

What does this test do with stainless steels and what ishappening in reality?.................................................................What can go wrong?..................................................................For which purposes can the salt spray test be used and forwhich can it not?…......................................................What is the best practice?..........................................................

About theInternational Stainless Steel Forum(ISSF)

Founded in 1996, the International Stainless SteelForum (ISSF) is a non-profit research organizationthat serves as the world forum on various aspectsof the international stainless steel industry. Whilsthaving its own Board of Directors, budgets andSecretary General, ISSF is part of the International

Iron and Steel Institute (IISI). ISSF now comprisessome 73 company and affiliated members in 26countries. Jointly, they are responsible for around85 percent of the worldwide stainless steelproduction. A full list of members can be found onthe ISSF website: www.worldstainless.org.

© 2008 International Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF)


3/20

3

1. What is the aim of this brief?

Due to its numerous properties and,specifically, its corrosion resistance,stainless steel is used for manyapplications in the Industrial, Automotiveor Domestic sectors.

Stainless steel is steel with a chromiumcontent of more than 10.5%.

By adding various alloying elements it is

possible to create a complete range ofgrades, which have different physical orchemical properties. The choice of grademust take into account several differentparameters. Corrosion resistance will beone of them.

While this parameter is essential, thechoice remains very difficult fordesigners or manufacturers who must

use stainless steels. Indeed, how can auser be sure of the life cycle of a grade ifit is new or will be used for a newapplication in which the environment isnot stable or perfectly known? How, forexample, can the correct stainless steelgrade for a device that will be located onthe seafront be identified? The simplestsolution would be an over-specifiedgrade but, for economic reasons, this isobviously unacceptable.

For this reason, stainless steels areoften characterised by performingaccelerated corrosion tests. The mediais selected to be not too far from realconditions, but a little more severe, tosimulate the life duration.

One of the most known acceleratedcorrosion test is the salt spray test.However, this test can unfortunatelysometimes lead to the elimination of

economic grades that could be suitablefor an application. It can even lead tomodification of the classification ofgrades, as a result of creating differentmechanisms of corrosion.

This document will try to explain thelimits in the use and interpretation of saltspray tests.

2. What is the salt spray test?

This accelerated laboratory test wasinvented at the beginning of the 20thcentury.

It provides a controlled corrosiveenvironment and has been used toproduce relative corrosion-resistance

information for specimens of metals and

coated metals exposed in a testchamber.

The classical salt spray (fog) test ASTMB117 consists of atomizing a saltsolution into uniform droplets onspecimens supported or suspendedbetween 15-30°from the vertical.

Iron

Carbon < 1.2 %

Chromium > 10.5%+

Stainless Steel


4/20

4

The salt solution is a solution of 5% (inweight) of NaCl, (more than sea water,which is only 1.8% to max 3%). The

exposure zone of the salt spray chamberis maintained at 35°C.

The pH of the salt solution is such thatwhen atomized at 35°C, the collectedsolution will be in a pH range from 6.5 to7.2.

The test is continuous for the duration ofthe entire test period.

The period of exposure is mutuallyagreed upon between the purchaser andthe seller. It can reach more than1000H.

There exist other accelerated testing procedures – in ageing tests, quite often used inautomotive industry. These tests are briefly described below. The most importantcorrosive element is moisture, which is applied in all ageing tests, supplemented by saltmist and/or changing temperature.

Testing procedure Short description Main impactVDA 621-415(VDA – Wechseltest)

Salt mist, condensed water,standard climate(18°C< T < 40°C)

Moisture, corrosion

VW P 1200 80°C/95% relative humidity/- 40°C

Moisture, changingtemperature conditions

VW P 1210 Salt mist, condensed water Moisture, corrosionVDA - KKT 3 weeks VDA 621-415, salt

mist 1 week VW P 1200Corrosion, moisture,changing temperatureconditions

SCAB-test 60°C/-25°C, salt mist60°C/ 85% relative humidity30°C/60% relative humidity

Corrosion, moisture

The results are given rather in qualitative than quantitative form.


5/20

5

3. Why it is so popular? What are its advantages?

The salt spray test is the oldest“corrosion test” and the most widelyused by users of highly corrosion-resistant material. It has become a“universal” test.

The reason is that the salt spray testoffers numerous advantages.

One of the most interesting is that thetest is multi-material.

For example, it is possible to test a barematerial, a painted one and a noble orsacrificial coating [Figure 1].

The test duration is short compared tothe natural environment, the cost islimited and a standardised material isrequired.

There is a limited number of standardsdedicated to this technique, so theframework is widely known.

Electro-galvanized carbon steel AISI 441 type stainless steel

4 8 h

3 8 0 h

Figure 1: Electro-galvanized carbon steel and AISI 441 type stainless steel after shortand long salt spray test exposure.

The salt spray test can also be acombined test of material and surfacefinish, due to the fact that roughness andwettability play a considerable role in the

final result.


6/20

6

Influence of the roughness and wettability of thesurface on time of contact of the droplets.

Many users do not even hesitate to testshaped items or equipped parts. In

addition, we should not forget that theresults provided by such tests areimpressive and easy to comprehend.

The test is consequently appreciated forbeing useable in a commercialargument. On the other hand,systematic abuses are sometimesnoted, especially when stainless steelsare tested.

As a first approach, it is sometimesfound that the standard itself is not wellenough known. In the next part, an in-

depth reading is therefore suggested.

To conclude, the salt spray testunfortunately has serious drawbacks. Itis a destructive test, very scattered andnot correlated with actual performance.

4. What is written in the Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray(Fog) Apparatus: ASTM B117?

The standard ASTM B117 (or its equivalent CEI 60068-11) is used in this part tohighlight specific points. It is to be remembered that the standard does not describe thetype of samples, the exposure time for a given product or the procedure for interpretingthe results (Extract 1).

(Extract 1)

It is therefore necessary to present here the choices made by the laboratory, such as the

type of sample and its preparation (test duration and validation criteria should be


7/20

7

decided in agreement with the customer). We also highlight the risk of misinterpretationand suggestions for good practices deduced from reading the standard.

It is generally not possible to assess the behaviour of a material (especially for stainlesssteels) in a natural environment from the results of a salt spray test (Extract 2).

(Extract 2)

Numerous previous experiments confirm this fact (Extract 3) and we insist particularly onthe fact that there is no direct relation between resistance to the salt spray test andresistance in another environment.

(Extract 3)

In addition, reproducibility is highly dependent on the type of specimen (Extract 4) and isnot even good for similar samples (Extract 5).

(Extract 4)

(Extract 5)

In the absence of recommendations provided by the standard, it is nevertheless possibleto deduce the type of sample from extract 6. It should be flat, since an angle from 15°to

30° from the vertical must be respected. This extra ct illustrates the difficulties in


8/20

8

interpretation of the salt spray test performed on shaped items with horizontal zones withretention. At the laboratory, rectangular samples (100mm x 150mm) are typically used.

(Extract 6)In addition to the sample-cleaning method recommended in the standard (laboratoryprocedure: ultrasound in an ethanol/acetone mixture, then rinsing with distilled water andfinally drying), it is essential to suitably protect the edges. Regarding coated materials(which are finally the only ones for which the standard is useful, by highlighting possibleporosity of the coating), the standard recommends protecting the cut edges and zones incontact with the support by paint, wax or suitable tape (Extract 7).

(Extract 7)

5. What does this test do with stainless steels, what is happening inreality and what can go wrong?

The salt spray fog test puts materials inthe very harsh environment of a high-chloride test medium.

The chloride concentration specified ismore than hundredfold higher than indrinking water and even higher than insea water (chloride concentrations of3.0% for the test solution, 1.8% for seawater and max. 0.025% for drinkingwater according to the Europeandrinking water directive).

So the salt spray test does not usuallyserve for reproducing real serviceconditions. Only occasionally it is used

for a very rough simulation of highchloride environments to be met in, forexample, marine service – and even inthese cases it cannot really map the

conditions and often leads to corrosionreactions and material rankings that aredifferent from those in field exposure.

The salt spray test just generates adefined high-corrosive environmentwhich is quite well reproducible, often

just used for production and quality-control purposes. It can serve to detectunsuitable items or material samples inseries of known behaviour.


9/20

9

If stainless steels are prone to corrosionin the salt spray test, no generalthinning, but forms of localized attack

are normally observed.

The prevalent types are pitting andcrevice corrosion. With these corrosionforms, attack is normally confined tovery small surface areas, while thesurrounding surface shows no thinningand exhibits the original surfacetopography, more or less covered withrusty corrosion products.

Whereas pitting is also found on baresurface areas, crevice corrosion onlyoccurs in case of crevice configuration.The corrosion morphology ischaracterized by pits that have a smalldiameter compared to their depth, in thecase of pitting, and shallower forms inthe case of crevice corrosion (Fig. 1 and1b). Pitting in the salt spray test oftenleads to localised or cloudy rust spots.

Fig 1: Diagram of pitting corrosion

Fig 1b: Diagram of crevice corrosion

Not only in this test but also in many

actual applications, chloride salts are themost relevant corrosive species forstainless steels and pitting and crevicecorrosion are the corrosion formsencountered. However, in terms ofmapping reality, the salt spray test is notsufficient to simulate actual applicationenvironments.

The corrosive medium of the salt spray test impacts on stainless steel directly from thestart of exposure, without any protection over time afforded by, for example, a coating.

There is therefore no long incubation time before a corrosion reaction occurs. It will beseen rather soon, after several hours or a few days when the steel is not resistant. Also,when the test continues further, the corrosion attack proceeds gradually and corrosionbehaviour does not usually change abruptly, as can be seen with other materials.

Coated steels, for instance, which are also often evaluated by means of the salt spraytest, may remain free from any visual degradation for quite a long time, until the coatingcan no longer offer protection.

Then the behaviour of the material changes drastically and severe corrosion sets in (Fig.2). So different types of materials exhibit completely different corrosion reactions in thesalt spray test and therefore should not be compared by means of this test.


10/20

10

Fig. 2: Diagram of the corrosion progress of stainless steel (blue) and coated steel (red) when exposed tothe salt spray test

Due to its very high chloride level, the salt spray test often induces corrosion in stainlesssteels that are resistant to the much lower chloride impact of actual applications. Thesalt spray test then changes the corrosion behaviour of stainless steels and can neither

serve as an accelerating nor as a simulating test.

The salt spray test is also of ratherlimited use for comparing the corrosionresistance of different stainless steelgrades and for establishing a ranking or

– even more ambitious – quantifying thedifferences in corrosion resistance.

The reason is that the corrosiveconditions of the test are fixed andcannot be adjusted to the resistance ofthe steel grades to be tested.

This is completely different for othertests better suited to stainless steels,such as critical pitting potential or criticalpitting temperature measurements inNaCl- and FeCl3

- solution respectively. Inthese tests, corrosivity is progressively

increased by shifting continuously or

stepwise one test parameter (e.g. thepotential or the temperature) until criticalconditions are reached and corrosioninitiates. The critical value of the variabletest parameter where corrosion initiatesthen serves as a measure of thecorrosion resistance of the materialtested. Critical pitting potentials or

temperatures of different materials cantherefore be determined, serve as aquantitative measure of corrosionresistance and be compared.

With the salt spray test it is not possibleto measure corrosion resistance in sucha quantitative manner.

Because corrosion attack on stainlesssteels in the salt spray test proceeds as

pitting and crevice corrosion, the factors

Corrosionprogress

Stainless

steel

Coated

steel

Exposure time


11/20

11

influencing these corrosion forms alsodetermine the behaviour of stainlesssteels in this test.

In addition, features that influence therinsing-off of the test medium from thesamples are relevant for the resistancein this test. The sample shape andgeometric effects are thereforeimportant.

Chromium and molybdenum are themost important alloying elements ofstainless steel in terms of corrosion

resistance. The higher the content ofthese two metals, the more aggressivemust the conditions be to initiate pittingand crevice corrosion.

Molybdenum is more effective thanchromium, which is expressed by the so-called PRE-value:

PRE=%Cr+3.3x%Mo

The PRE value is the resistance of astainless steel against pitting andcrevice corrosion that can be expectedon the basis of its alloy composition.

Stainless steels with only 12%chromium, such as 1.4512, develop

severe rusting within only a few hours ina salt spray test.

Steels with ~18% chromium (1.4301 etal ) are quite resistant for much longer.Higher-alloyed grades containingadditional molybdenum, such as 1.4404,are quite resistant, even in moreendangered areas such as crevices.

Besides the alloying elements chromium and molybdenum, nickel is beneficial for saltspray test behaviour. In contrast to chromium and molybdenum, nickel does notincrease resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion initiation but it very effectively slows

down the corrosion process once it has started. Thus nickel-austenitic grades oftenshow better salt spray test results, with much less rusting than low-nickel ferritic gradeswith similar PRE-values.

12%chromium

18%chromium

+molybdenum


12/20

12

Since the salt spray test detects surface flaws and suboptimal surface states verysensitively, it is often used for comparing polished finishes. Smoother finishes tend toshow better test behaviour but roughness is not the only influencing factor. Moreimportant is a coherent surface without micro-cracks and micro-crevices, for example inthe form of material overlaps. Residues of the polishing material can be detrimental,contaminate low-alloyed steel, leading to very rapid rusting.

Heat tint colours resulting from heat treatments or welding operations reduce pitting andcrevice corrosion resistance. In addition the oxides forming these colours can react incorrosive environments, transforming to brownish hydroxides. Heat tinted areas aretherefore often prone to corrosion and rusting in salt spray tests (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Effect of heat tint colours and weld cleaning operations on the salt spray testresistance of stainless steel 1.4301

Corrosion at the cut edges of the sampleoften makes the carrying out of a saltspray test and its evaluation moredifficult, if corrosion products emergingat the upper and lateral edges spreadout over the sample surface, maskinglarge area fractions after longer testing

times. The appearance of the sample isthen governed by the corrosionbehaviour of the cut edges, which isusually of less interest, while thecorrosion behaviour of the rolledsurfaces can no longer be adequatelyevaluated.

Nickel-austeniticgrade

Ferritic grade

without nickel

Same behaviourfor low-nickelaustenitic grades

BrushedUntreated

GroundPickled


13/20

13

Corrosion of the cut edges and holes isoften caused by ferrous contamination

from drilling and cutting.

Corrosion of the cut edges can lead toconsiderable rust formation. The cross-sectional areas are not only slightly lesscorrosion resistant than the rolled

surfaces. A fissured topography from thecutting operation and slower draining-offof the test medium makes cut edgeseven more susceptible and theircorrosion behaviour rather irregular, soparallel samples can show quite differentresistance.

To reduce these experimentalshortcomings, cut edges can be masked

with adhesive tape or prepared to obtaina smoother surface. The sample areascovered with corrosion products comingfrom the cut edges should be ignoredwhen evaluation is performed.

According to the test specification, thesalt fog has to fall vertically. With flatsamples standing inclined, according tothe standard, the test medium does notstagnate on the surface but drains offrapidly and is continuously replenished.

If other sample layouts let the testmedium stagnate in crevices,depressions or on horizontal sections,these areas are much more prone tocorrosion and the positioning of thesample in relation to the falling directionof the salt has a considerable influenceon test behaviour. It is thereforerecommended to test only planesamples rather than constructionalelements with complex geometries.

Holeedges canlead tocorrosion

Bad

adhesivetape canlead tocorrosion

Goodadhesivetape canavoid

corrosion


14/20

14

6. For which purpose can the salt spray test be used and for whichshould it not?

As shown in this document, the salt spray test has some serious drawbacks when usedfor stainless steel. It is a destructive test, which gives often quite scattered results thatoften do not correlate that well with the performance of the stainless steel grade in thefinal application. Nevertheless, testing stainless steels in salt spray chambers has itsfields of use in material science and engineering, when performed with care by expertsknowing and considering its above-discussed limitations.

Comparison of the corrosion resistance of different stainless steel grades is possible.

But the test gives only a ranking of materials. A salt spray on its own cannot normallyprovide sufficient information for stainless steel grade selection, as the correlationbetween the test conditions and the application is often not sufficiently well known. Forthe same basic reason, it is also impossible to estimate the lifetime of the manufacturedproduct from the salt spray test result of a stainless steel sample. It is also not possibleto compare materials of different classes, such as stainless steel and painted carbonsteel. The corrosion mechanisms for these two materials in this test are different, as willbe the correlation between their test results and the real-life environment.

The received test results are only valid for the conditions of the test – namelyatmospheric corrosion – since the material may behave differently when, for example,

immersed continuously in a salt solution. Also, changes in the specimens, such as theirshape, can lead to erroneous conclusions. Introducing welds or tensile stress in thespecimens, for instance, may give a quite different material ranking.

One advantage of the salt spray test is that it not only tests the corrosion resistance ofthe base material but can also show the influence of surface preparation on theresistance of stainless steels to atmospheric corrosion. But as the correlation betweentest conditions and application are, as mentioned above, not normally well defined, theresult is only a ranking of preparation methods, as described before for material

comparisons. Therefore, it can only help choose the best surface finish. It cannotprovide information to select a surface sufficiently good for the application.

Another advantage of the salt spray testis that it is possible to examine quite bigsamples, depending on the size of thesalt spray chamber. Chambers areavailable in sizes that even allow thetesting of a whole truck. When exposing

fabricated products to a salt spray test,

the product development engineer cangather valuable information on theperformance of his product underconditions of accelerated atmosphericcorrosion. When correctly planned andaccurately performed, the test will

identify details in the structure that will


15/20

15

probably show corrosion first, in the finalapplication. Typically, this will includecrevices, untreated weld seams and

areas where dirt or water can collectlater. Based on the test results, theengineer can improve these parts of theproduct.

It also must be pointed out here that the test will not show when or even if corrosion will

occur in the real-life environment. Similarly, the salt spray test can help a quality controlengineer identify steps in the manufacturing process that make the product more proneto corrosion, by highlighting areas where, for example, extraneous rust has come intocontact with the stainless steel surface or where, for example, cut edges should bedeburred. As the dependence of the test results on small differences in the basematerial is relatively low, the test cannot usually serve the quality engineer as anacceptance tool for different batches of final products.

A salt spray test is simple to perform and its results seem to be immediatelyunderstandable to everyone. This makes it an interesting tool also for marketingpurposes. Since it is, however, important to construe the results of the test properly and

since there are many ways to introduce mistakes into the test procedure, salt spray testresults of stainless steel should be presented with care, knowledge and good faith. Also,those looking at marketing material containing the results of salt spray tests should beaware of the test method’s above-described constraints, so as to avoid misinterpretationor misunderstanding.

7. What is the best practice for assessing the corrosion resistance ofstainless steels?

As shown above, the salt spray test can

serve only as accelerated ranking testfor stainless steel samples underconditions of atmospheric corrosion. It isoften impossible to make predictions onthe service life of a product or decideabout the acceptance of a product for acertain application based on the resultsof such a test. As it cannot be anacceptance or lifecycle prediction test, itis often not necessary to perform the saltspray test exactly according to the

standardized method to get a ranking of

sample differences. This means that theconditions of each single salt spray test

can be optimized to reach the goal of theexperiment as best as possible. Forinstance, it is absolutely reasonable touse intermediate spraying techniqueswith drying periods for testing of morecorrosion resistant stainless steelgrades. Alternatively, more aggressiveconditions can be obtained by replacingthe commonly applied sodium chloridesolution by calcium chloride solution.


16/20

16

On the other hand, samples that aremore prone to corrosion can be tested atlower temperatures or with diluted or

even inhibited chloride solutions. Thismeans also that it is often possible tostop a salt spray test when all stainlesssteel samples show at least thebeginning stages of pitting corrosion.

For comparing different stainless steelgrades, more methods that are notnecessarily limited to pitting corrosionunder the conditions of atmosphericcorrosion are available to the corrosion

engineer. Generally speaking, thecorrosion test method of choice shouldrepresent the conditions in the finalapplication as best as possible. On theother hand, it may take quite a long timeto perform a corrosion test under real lifeconditions – which is usually denoted as'field test' and gives, of course, the mostreliable test results. In the case ofapplications that are often related to salt

spray tests, the selection of anunsuitable material, surface finish ormanufacturing method often leads to

initial small corrosion damage after arelatively short time of use. Therefore, acarefully performed field test, takingperhaps several months or sometimes ayear, can be a very powerful alternativein many cases, where materialsubstitution is the target of corrosiontesting.

In order to overcome the problem thatfield tests may take quite some time,

accelerated laboratory corrosion testshave been developed, which are oftenperformed under conditions significantlydifferent from the final application,leading sometimes even to differentcorrosion mechanisms. A suitablecomparison method should therefore beexpertly selected, taking into account thetarget application and the occurringcorrosion mechanisms.

Suggested Alternative:Measurement of the critical pitting temperature (CPT, see ASTM G48 or ASTM G150),which is the temperature necessary to induce pitting corrosion in stainless steel in givenconditions, is often the better choice for higher alloyed-grades, since the salt spray testis usually not severe enough to cause corrosion damage. For austenitic and ferriticstandard grades, the measurement of pitting potential, which is the electrochemicalpotential that is necessary to induce pitting corrosion under given conditions, is also apopular way of comparing their pitting corrosion resistance. When testing stainless steelfor use under conditions that may also result in corrosion other than pitting corrosion, itis usually necessary to choose a special corrosion test and consult an expert.

Apart from laboratory and field tests, thesimplest way to compare the pittingcorrosion resistance of stainless steelgrades is to use the Pitting ResistanceEquivalent (PRE, see various ISSFdocuments ), which is calculated on thebasis of the composition of the gradeand correlates to its (CPT). It takes thechromium, molybdenum and nitrogencontent of the alloy into account and

gives a handy measure to compare

stainless steel grades. Despite itssimplicity, calculated PRE numbersoften give results that are as reliable assalt spray tests for many real-lifeapplications, without performing anyexperiment.


17/20

17

It must be pointed out, however, that thePRE number does not reflect theinfluence of the alloying element nickel,

which plays an important role inrepassivation of active pits and in pittingcorrosion propagation, resulting often inhigher amounts of red rust formed onlow-nickel grades under the extremeconditions of the salt spray test.

The best way to estimate the lifetime of a given product is, of course, still to refer to theprevious experience of other users of stainless steel. Surprisingly, much information ispublished and available through stainless steel producers and their national andinternational organizations, literature, commercial databases and even standards. Forinstance, for architectural applications, standard EN 1993-1-4, contains a simple buthandy materials selection table, based on many years of experience.


18/20

18

ISSF Members Abbreviations

Company membersCompany Name

Acerinox S.A.Aichi Steel CorporationArcelor Mittal – Inox Brazil S.A.Arcelor Mittal – Stainless EuropeArcelor Mittal – Stainless InternationalArcelorMittal – StainlessBaoshan Iron and Steel Co. (Stainless Steel Branch)BNG Steel Co. Ltd.Böllinghaus GmbH & Co. KG

Carpenter Technology CorporationCogne Acciai Speciali S.p.A.Columbus Stainless (Pty) LtdDaido Steel Co. Ltd.Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbHGerdau Aços Especiais PiratiniHyundai Steel CompanyIndusteel ArcelorMittalJFE Steel CorporationJindal Stainless Ltd.JSC Dneprospetsstal

Ningbo Baoxin Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd.Nippon Metal Industry Co. Ltd.Nippon Steel and Sumikin StainlessNippon Yakin Kogyo Co., Ltd.Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.North American StainlessOutokumpu OyjPanchmahal Steel LimitedPOSCOPOSCO Specialty Steel Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Krupp Stainless Co. Ltd.SIJ - Slovenska industrija jekla d.d./Slovenian Steel GroupSteel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL)Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.Taiyuan Iron & Steel (Group) Co. Ltd. (TISCO)Takasago Tekko K.K.Tang Eng Iron Works Co. Ltd.Thainox Stainless Public Company LimitedThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A.ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH

ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG


19/20

19

Ugitech S.A.Viraj GroupWalsin Lihwa Corporation

Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO)

Affiliated membersAustralian Stainless Steel Development Association (ASSDA)British Stainless Steel Association (BSSA)CedinoxCENDICentro InoxEdelstahl-Vereinigung e.V.Euro Inox

EUROFERInstitut de Développement de l'Inox (ID Inox)Informationsstelle Edelstahl Rostfrei (ISER)Indian Stainless Steel Development Association (ISSDA)Japan Stainless Steel Association (JSSA)JernkontoretKorea Iron and Steel Association (KOSA)New Zealand Stainless Steels Development Association (NZSSDA)Nucleo InoxPASDERPolska Unia Dystrybuturów Stali (PUDS)

Southern Africa Stainless Steel Development Association (SASSDA)Special Steel and Alloys Consumers and Suppliers Association (USSA)Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)Stainless Steel Council of China Specialist Steel Enterprises Association (CSSC)Swiss InoxTaiwan Steel and Iron Industries Association (TSIIA)Thai Stainless Steel Development Association (TSSDA)Union de Empresas Siderúrgicas (UNESID)


20/20

20

International Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF)

Rue Colonel Bourg 120B-1140 BrusselsBelgium

T: +32 2 702 8900

F: +32 2 702 8899

E: [email protected]

worldstainless.org

ISSF the Salt Spray Test and Its Use in Ranking Stainless Steels

Documents

Transcript of ISSF the Salt Spray Test and Its Use in Ranking Stainless Steels